For many years we have heard that the jihadists have “hijacked” Islam by arbitrarily picking and choosing what verses of the Koran and teachings of Muhammad, or portions thereof, to follow, while ignoring those that don’t support their actions.
In a similar vein, the Ahmadiyyah Muslim Community USA has hijacked Islam with their website Muhammad Fact Check. This website purports to address 35 “myths” about Muhammad by showing what the true facts are. However, as we shall see in looking at a sampling of six of those “myths,” the Ahmadis have been selective in the information they have presented and have left out crucial information in order to promote their version of the “facts.”
And it is ironic that this Ahmadi website actually states, “Discover what True Islam is directly from Muslims (not the extremists).” The reality is, as I have pointed out in an earlier article, that most of the Muslim world does not even consider Ahmadis to be Muslims!
Myth No. 1: Prophet Muhammad murdered 700 innocent Jews
There are three parts to the Ahmadi response to this “myth.” We’ll examine each one separately.
- Prophet Muhammad graciously agreed to let the Banu Quraizah’s own ally, Sa‘d bin Mu‘adh of Aus, deliver the verdict.
This incident stemmed from the time in 627 when the Muslims of Medina were confronted by a large non-Muslim force intent on destroying the Muslims (known as the Battle of the Trench). Sa’d bin Mu’adh had converted to Islam well before this time, and was now “a former ally” of the Banu Quraizah.[1]
After hearing reports that the Jewish Banu Quraizah had joined with the enemy, Muhammad sent Sa’d with some other prominent Muslims to verify this. When Sa’d confronted the Banu Quraizah about this, the Jews responded by slandering Muhammad and denying any treaty with the Muslims. Sa’d, who was a man of “hasty temper,” reviled the Jews and the Jews reviled Sa’d.[2] Sa’d’s temper was noted in other sources, e.g.: S’ad “was a man with some fury in him”;[3] and Sa’d became “violently angry” during this exchange.[4] Sa’d and the Muslims returned to Muhammad and reported what had happened.
During a subsequent battle, S’ad was wounded by an arrow. Sa’d said a prayer to Allah and ended it by “begging Allah not to let him die until he had had full revenge on Banu Quraizah.”[5] There were other reports about Sa’d’s vengeful attitude toward the Banu Quraizah.[6] It was also reported that Sa’d had prayed to Allah “to stay alive to see the destruction of Banu Quraydha.”[7]
Muhammad had a tent set up close to him in which Sa’d rested from his wound. Since Muhammad visited Sa’d often, Muhammad was likely already aware of Sa’d’s feelings toward the Banu Quraizah before he announced that Sa’d would decide on the fate of that tribe.
So when Sa’d announced his decision, he was not an “ally” of the Banu Quraizah, but rather someone who had pleaded with Allah to allow him to live long enough to have “full revenge” on, and to “see the destruction of” that tribe.
After Sa’d had announced his decision regarding the Banu Quaraizah, his wound started bleeding again. He once again prayed to Allah, and ended it by saying:
“And if the war has subsided, open this wound and place my death in it since I have satisfied myself with the Banu Qurayza for their enmity to You and to Your Prophet and Your loved ones!”[8]
Sa’d died soon afterwards.
So in reality Muhammad had “graciously agreed” to let the fate of the Banu Quraizah be decided by an ill-tempered former ally of theirs who had earlier asked Allah to let him live long enough to be able to wreak his revenge on that tribe and see it destroyed.
- Prophet Muhammad did not order any execution, nor did he participate in the execution.
This claim by the Ahmadis flies in the face of numerous authoritative works of Muslim scholars which stated that Muhammad had ordered every adult male captive to be killed, and that he also supervised their beheadings.[9]
Muhammad even personally sent captives to specific Muslims who then beheaded those captives.[10]
But since it was a hot summer day, eventually Muhammad did feel some compassion for those waiting to be beheaded:
“The Messenger of God said, ‘Be good to your captives. Let them rest; quench their thirst until they are cool. Then, kill those who remain. Do not apply both the heat of the sun and the heat of the weapons.’ It was a summer’s day. They let them rest. They quenched their thirst and fed them. When they were cool the Messenger of God began to kill those who were left.’”[11]
- Adding to the injustice in blaming Prophet Muhammad is the fact that Sa‘d bin Mu‘adh did not deliver his decision based on the Qur’an. Rather, he delivered the judgment for the Banu Quraizah based on the punishment for treason that their book, the Torah, prescribes.
In reality, before Sa’d delivered his decision he asked the Muslims around him, “Do you covenant by Allah that you accept the judgement I pronounce on them?”[12] After Sa’d had announced his decision, Muhammad stated, “You have passed judgement on them with the judgement of God [Allah] and the judgement of His Messenger.”[13] Nothing about the Torah here.
Myth No. 3: Prophet Muhammad married Ayesha when she was underage
The Ahmadis claim that, “Facts indicate that A’isha was no younger than 12-13 at the time of her willing marriage with parental consent.” Much of their claim rests on the assertion that “virtually every narration” about this is tied to one Muslim, Hisham ibn ‘Urwah, who was “unreliable due to his old age and extensive memory loss.”
However, it is incorrect to focus on ibn ‘Urwah as the main source for this narration. Aisha herself said that Muhammad married her when she was six years old and consummated their marriage when she was nine:
“Narrated ‘Aishah that the Prophet wrote the marriage contract with her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).”[14]
The fact that Aisha was six years old when she was married to Muhammad and nine years old when they consummated their marriage was also reported in many works by authoritative Muslim scholars.[15]
Aisha herself had this to say about the day her marriage was consummated in Medina:
“The Messenger of God came to our house and men and women of the Ansar gathered around him. My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches and got me down. Jumaymah, my nurse, took over and wiped my face with some water and started leading me. When I was at the door, she stopped so I could catch my breath. I was then brought [in] while the Messenger of God was sitting on a bed in our house. [My mother] made me sit on his lap and said, “These are your relatives. May God bless you with them and bless them with you!” Then the men and women got up and left. The Messenger of God consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old.”[16]
Perhaps the Ahmadis should heed what a modern Muslim scholar said about those who try to deny that Aisha was married at age six and the marriage was consummated at age nine:
“Some individuals, who ostensibly claim to be researchers, deny the aforementioned narrations concerning the age of ‘Aishah. These narrations are, however, authentic. It is the statement of ‘Aishah herself, which her various pupils have transmitted from her. A great majority of her pupils cannot make the same mistake.”[17]
Myths No. 5 and No. 21: Muhammad Taught Death for Apostasy
These two “myths” are similar so they will be dealt with together. In addressing these two “myths” the Ahmadis claim that neither the Koran nor the teachings of Muhammad command death for apostates from Islam.
It is interesting that when looking at these two “myths,” the Ahmadis make reference to a number of Koran verses, except there is no mention of 4:89 of the Koran, the actual verse that commands death for apostasy:
“…But if they turn back (from Islam), take (hold of) them and kill them wherever you find them…”
And Muhammad himself said it was legal to kill a Muslim who left Islam:
“Narrated ‘Abdullah: Allah’s Messenger said, ‘The blood of a Muslim who confesses that La ilaha illallah (none has the right to be worshipped but Allah) and that I am the Messenger of Allah, cannot be shed except in three cases:…(3) the one who turns renegade from Islam (apostate) and leaves the group of Muslims (by innovating heresy, new ideas and new things, etc. in the Islamic religion).’”[18]
And Muhammad even specified the nature of that death:
“If someone changes his religion – then strike off his head!”[19]
Can the Ahmadis really be unaware of 4:89 and these teachings of Muhammad?
Myth No. 15: Muhammad Ordered Murder of Eight Men for Apostasy
There are two parts to the Ahmadi response to this “myth.” We’ll examine each one separately.
1 …the eight men from ‘Ukil were not killed for apostatizing, but were held accountable for committing a vicious murder and treason.
The incident involved men from ‘Ukil (Ukl or the ‘Uraina tribe) who had come to Medina and converted to Islam. But the climate of Medina made them ill, so Muhammad sent them to his camel herd and ordered them to drink camel milk and urine until they recovered. The men became healthy, renounced Islam, killed Muhammad’s camel-herder and took off with the camels. Muhammad sent Muslim warriors after them. The men were captured, and Muhammad ordered that their hands and feet were to be cut off and their eyes blinded.
In addressing this story, the Ahmadis stated, “Their apostasy had nothing to do with the punishment they incurred.” In support of this claim, they used a hadith reported by Anas bin Malik and found in Sahih Al-Bukhari; this hadith ended with a “sub-narrator,” Abu Qilaba, listing the crimes of these men: “They committed murder and theft and fought against Allah and His Apostle and spread evil in the land.” So there was no mention of apostasy in the hadith used by the Ahmadis.
But it is important to note that this hadith from Anas bin Malik is reported a number of times in Sahih Al-Bukhari. Some of the reports did not even include the above comments by Abu Qilaba.[20] But Bukhari did report a version of this hadith that included what was an abbreviated version of Abu Qilaba’s statement;[21] the Ahmadis appear to have used this particular hadith on their website.
However, Bukhari also reported this hadith with Abu Qilaba’s complete statement:
“Abu Qilaba added, ‘Those people committed theft, murder, became disbelievers after embracing Islam, and fought against Allah and His Messenger.’”[22]
So when looking at Abu Qilaba’s complete statement, we find that he actually listed apostasy as one of the crimes committed by these eight men.[23]
And the Ahmadi claim that the punishment had nothing to do with apostasy completely ignores what Anas himself had to say about this incident:
“The Commander of the Believers, ‘Abdul-Malik, said to Anas – when he was narrating this hadith to him – ‘(Were they being punished) for Kufr [disbelief] or for a sin?’ He said: ‘For Kufr.’”[24]
- Indeed, Prophet Muhammad loathed to harm anyone and inclined to forgiveness as often as possible. He even forgave the man who caused his daughter to fall from a camel, have a miscarriage…
This incident occurred around April 624 and involved Muhammad’s daughter Zaynab; the man who caused Zaynab to fall was Habbar b. al-Aswad. But contrary to the Ahmadis’ claim, Muhammad did not immediately forgive Habbar; instead, for many years Muhammad had a standing order for the live mutilation and then killing of Habbar:
“As for Habbar b. al-Aswad, indeed the Messenger of God, whenever he sent out an expedition, commanded it regarding Habbar that if he were found he should be burned in the fire. Then he changed his mind saying: Surely only, the lord of the hell fire should cause such suffering. Cut off his hands and his legs if you have power over him, then kill him…His crime was that he sought out the daughter of the Messenger of God, Zaynab, and struck her back with a spear until she who was pregnant fell and lost her baby. The Prophet permitted his blood.”[25]
However, after the conquest of Mecca in January 630, Habbar suddenly appeared before Muhammad and quickly announced his conversion to Islam; for this reason alone he was spared by Muhammad.
So for almost six years Muhammad did not forgive Habbar and instead wanted Habbar to be mutilated and then killed. Muhammad only forgave Habbar because Habbar converted to Islam before he could be captured.
Myth No. 17: Muhammad Promised Women in Heaven for Martyrs
The Ahmadis claim that,
“Prophet Muhammad and the Qur’an reject the concept of heavenly reward via, ‘sex with beautiful women for eternity’…suffice it to say that the allegation that the reward of martyrdom is hedonistic pleasure is a belief that finds no support in Islam in any capacity.”
Except for the fact that Muhammad, the Ahmadis’ prophet, promised that very thing:
“Al-Miqdam bin Ma’diykarib narrated that the Messenger of Allah said: ‘There are six things with Allah for the martyr…he is shown his place in Paradise…he is married to seventy-two wives among Al-Huril-‘Ayn of Paradise…’”[26]
Another word for Al-Huril-‘Ayn is Hur. Here is an authoritative definition of the word Hur:
“Very fair females created by Allah as such not from the offspring of Adam, with intense black irises of their eyes and intense white scleras.”[27]
Curiously, on their website the Ahmadis actually make the claim that the word Hur has no gender.
And it is incorrect for the Ahmadis to claim there is no support in Islam for “hedonistic pleasure” as a heavenly reward. Again we look to the Ahmadis’ prophet Muhammad:
“It was narrated from Abu Umamah that the Messenger of Allah said: ‘There is no one whom Allah will admit to Paradise but Allah will marry him to seventy-two wives, two from houris and seventy from his inheritance from the people of Hell, all of whom will have desirable front passages and he will have a male member that never becomes flaccid.’”[28]
And
“Anas narrated that the Prophet said: ‘The believer shall be given in Paradise such and such strength in intercourse.’ It was said: ‘O Messenger of Allah! And will he be able to do that?’ He said: ‘He will be given the strength of a hundred.’”[29]
There was a similar report from a different narrator:
“Abu Al-Qasim At-Tabarani recorded that Abu Hurayrah said that the Messenger of Allah was asked, ‘O Allah’s Messenger! Will we have sexual intercourse with our wives in Paradise?’ He said, ‘The man will be able to have sexual intercourse with a hundred virgins in one day.’”[30]
Contrary to what the Ahmadis claim, it appears that there is plenty of support in Islam for “hedonistic pleasures” in Paradise.
Conclusion
As I noted at the beginning of this article, most of the Muslim world does not consider Ahmadis to even be Muslims. So the Ahmadis know they can get little, if any support from the Muslim world.
As a result, it seems that the Ahmadis are making a special effort to reach out to non-Muslims. And the Ahmadis seem to know that non-Muslims would have a hard time accepting that Muhammad did leave the fate of a Jewish tribe up to an individual that he likely knew wanted to destroy that tribe; did consummate his marriage with a nine year old girl; did say death was the penalty for apostasy from Islam; did seek mutilation and death, instead of forgiveness, for an individual; and did promise “hedonistic pleasures” in Paradise.
So the Ahmadis have created a website with their own version of Islam, and they have “hijacked” Islam in a quest for relevance in the only world left open to them: the world of non-Muslims.
Dr. Stephen M. Kirby is the author of five books about Islam. His latest book is The Lure of Fantasy Islam: Exposing the Myths and Myth Makers.
[1] Safiur-Rahman al-Mubarakpuri, The Sealed Nectar (Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Darussalam, 2008), pp. 376-377.
[2] Muhammad ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad (Sirat Rasul Allah), trans. Alfred Guillaume (Karachi, Pakistan: Oxford University Press, 2007), p. 453.
[3] ‘Imaduddeen Isma’eel ibn Katheer al-Qurashi, In Defence of the True Faith: Battles, Expeditions, Peace Treaties and their Consequences in the life of Prophet Muhammad, trans. Research Department of Darussalam (Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Darussalam, 2010), p. 182.
[4] Muhammad b. ‘Umar al-Waqidi, The Life of Muhammad: Al-Waqidi’s Kitab al-Maghazi, trans. Rizwi Faizer, Amal Ismail, and AbdulKader Tayob, ed. Rizwi Faizer (London and New York: Routledge, 2013), p. 224.
[5] The Sealed Nectar, p. 368.
[6] The Life of Muhammad (Sirat Rasul Allah), p. 457; The Life of Muhammad: Al-Waqidi’s Kitab al-Maghazi, p. 251; and Sa’d Yusuf Abu ‘Aziz, Men and Women Around the Messenger, trans. Suleman Fulani (Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Darussalam, 2009), p. 253.
[7] Safiur Rahman Mubarakpuri, When the Moon Split (Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Darussalam, 2009), p. 244.
[8] The Life of Muhammad: Al-Waqidi’s Kitab al-Maghazi, p. 258.
[9] The Life of Muhammad (Sirat Rasul Allah), pp. 465-466; The Life of Muhammad: Al-Waqidi’s Kitab al-Maghazi, pp. 252-253; In Defence of the True Faith, p. 206; Abu ‘Abd Allah Muhammad ibn Sa’d ibn Mani’ al-Zuhri al-Basri, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, trans. S. Moinul Haq (New Delhi, India: Kitab Bhavan, 2009), Vol. 2, p. 93; Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. Jarir al-Tabari, The History of al-Tabari: The Victory of Islam, Vol. VIII, trans. and annotated Michael Fishbein (Albany, New York: State University of New York Press, 1997), pp. 35-36, and 38; and Ahmad ibn Yahya ibn Jabir al-Baladhuri, The Origins of the Islamic State, Being a Translation from the Arabic, Accompanied with Annotations, Geographic and Historic Notes of the Kitab Fituh Al-Buldan of Al-Imam Abu-L Abbas Ahmad Ibn-Jabir Al-Baladhuri, trans. Philip Khuri Hitti (1916; rpt. Lexington, Kentucky: Ulan Press, 2014), p. 41.
[10] The Life of Muhammad: Al-Waqidi’s Kitab al-Maghazi, p. 253.
[11] The Life of Muhammad: Al-Waqidi’s Kitab al-Maghazi, p. 252.
[12] The Life of Muhammad (Sirat Rasul Allah), p. 464.
[13] The History of al-Tabari: The Victory of Islam, p. 34.
[14] Muhammad bin Ismail bin Al-Mughirah al-Bukhari, Sahih Al-Bukhari, trans. Muhammad Muhsin Khan (Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Darussalam, 1997), Vol. 7, Book 67, No. 5133, p. 57.
[15] Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol. 5, Book 63, No. 3894, pp. 139-140; The Sealed Nectar, pp. 176-177, and 562; When the Moon Split, p. 129; Abu’l Hussain ‘Asakir-ud-Din Muslim bin Hajjaj al-Qushayri al-Naisaburi, Sahih Muslim, trans. ‘Abdul Hamid Siddiqi (New Delhi, India: Adam Publishers and Distributors, 2008), Vol. 4, Nos. 1422, 1422R1 and 1422R3, pp. 353-355; Muhammad bin Yazeed ibn Majah al-Qazwini, Sunan Ibn Majah, trans. Nasiruddin al-Khattab (Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Darussalam, 2007), Vol. 3, No. 1876, p. 76; Abu Dawud Sulaiman bin al-Ash’ath bin Ishaq, Sunan Abu Dawud, trans. Yaser Qadhi (Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Darussalam, 2008), Vol. 2, No. 2121, p. 540; and Vol. 5, No. 4933, p. 327; Abu ‘Abdur-Rahman Ahmad bin Shu’aib bin ‘Ali bin Sinan bin Bahr An-Nasa’i, Sunan An-Nasa’i, trans. Nasiruddin al-Khattab (Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Darussalam, 2007), Vol. 4, No. 3257, p. 118, and Nos. 3380-3381, pp. 181-182; Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. Jarir al-Tabari, The History of al-Tabari: The Foundation of the Community, Vol. VII, trans. and annotated W. Montgomery Watt and M. V. McDonald (Albany, New York: State University of New York Press, 1987), pp. 6-7; and The Honourable Wives of the Prophet, ed. Abdul Ahad (Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Darussalam, 2004), p. 42.
[16] Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. Jarir al-Tabari, The History of al-Tabari: The Last Years of the Prophet, Vol. IX, trans. and annotated Ismail K. Poonawala (Albany, New York: State University of New York Press, 1990), pp. 130-131.
[17] Sunan An-Nasa’i, Vol. 4, Comments to Hadith No. 3260, p. 119.
[18] Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, Book 87, No. 6878, p. 20.
[19] Malik ibn Anas ibn Malik ibn Abi ‘Amir al-Asbahi, Al-Muwatta of Imam Malik ibn Anas: The First Formulation of Islamic Law, trans. Aisha Abdurrahman Bewley (Inverness, Scotland: Madinah Press, 2004), 36.18.15, in a section titled “Judgement on Abandonment of Islam.”
[20] Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol. 7, No. 5685-86, pp. 328-329; and No. 5727, pp. 344-345.
[21] Ibid., Vol. 4, No. 3018, pp. 160-161.
[22] Ibid., Vol. 1, No. 233, pp. 178-179.
[23] Abu Qilaba’s complete statement was also reported in Sunan Abu Dawud, Vol. 5, No. 4364, pp. 22-23.
[24] Sunan An-Nasa’i, Vol. 1, No. 307, p. 189.
[25] The Life of Muhammad: Al-Waqidi’s Kitab al-Maghazi, p. 422.
[26] Abu ‘Eisa Mohammad ibn ‘Eisa at-Tirmidhi, Jami’ At-Tirmidhi, trans. Abu Khaliyl (Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Darussalam, 2007), Vol. 3, No. 1663, p. 410.
[27] Interpretation of the Meanings of The Noble Qur’an, trans. Muhammad Muhsin Khan and Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali (Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Darussalam, 2007), Glossary, p. 860.
[28] Sunan Ibn Majah, Vol. 5, No. 4337, pp. 423-424.
[29] Jami’ At-Tirmidhi, Vol. 4, No. 2536, p. 523.
[30] Abu al-Fida’ ‘Imad Ad-Din Isma’il bin ‘Umar bin Kathir al-Qurashi Al-Busrawi, Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged), abr. Shaykh Safiur-Rahman al-Mubarakpuri, trans. Jalal Abualrub, et al. (Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Darussalam, 2000), Vol. 9, p. 429.
mortimer says
ISLAM HAS AN ‘ESSENTIAL’ DOCTRINE OF HATE: ‘AL BARAA’ = Islamic Apartheid, Shunning
The hatred of Kafirs ‘for the sake of Allah’…Al Bughoud or Al Mu’adaat (hatred) is the opposite of Al Muwalaat (love of Muslims), it is:
– To Hate
– To keep distance from
– To be enemy to
– To desert
– To decline to help
– To disrespect
– To put down
– Not to ally with
– Not to support
Allah ordered Muslims to have Baraa (to be cleansed) from the kufaar and from kufr and shirk.
-Imam Abdul-Latif ibn Abdur-Rahman Rahimullah said, “It is not possible for someone to realize Tawheed and act upon it, and yet not be HOSTILE against the mushrikeen. So anyone who isn’t HOSTILE against the mushrikeen, then it cannot be said that he acts upon Tawheed nor that he realizes it.” [ad-Durar as-Saniyyah 8/167]
-“The doctrine of al Walaa wal Baraa is the REAL IMAGE for the actual practice of this faith.” – source “Al Walaa wal Baraa According to the Aqeedah of the Salaf”, by Sheikh Muhammad Saeed al Qatani, authoritative Saudi Sharia lawyer and imam at the Abu Bakr and Al Furqan Mosques in Mecca. – https://islamfuture.wordpress.com/2009/08/20/al-wala-wal-bara-according-to-the-aqeedah-of-the-salaf-parts-123/
-Shaykh Ahmad ibn ‘Atiq said:
“There isn’t in the Book of Allah the Exalted – after the issue concerning the obligation of tawheed and the forbiddance of its opposite – any issue which has as so many proofs, nor so clearly explained, than the issue of al-walaa’ and al-baraa’.”
Examples of al-Baraa from historic figures:
– from Sufi scholar Ahmad Sirhindi (1564-1624): “The honour of Islam lies in INSULTING kufr and kafirs. One who respects the kafirs dishonours the Muslims… The real purpose of levying jiziya on them is to HUMILIATE them to such an extent that they may not be able to dress well and to live in grandeur. They should constantly remain TERRIFIED and TREMBLING. It is intended to hold them under CONTEMPT and to uphold the honour and might of Islam.”
– from ibn Taymiyya, “Book of Emaan”: “… true believers show ANIMOSITY and HATRED towards disbelievers and NEVER support them.”
– from Umar Sulayman ‘Abd-Allaah al-Ashqar, “Belief in Allah”: “The Muslim should regard the Kuffaar as ENEMIES and HATE them because of their kufr, just as he hates their kufr (disbelief) itself.”
– from [Chap.iv] “The Islaamic Concept of al-Walaa’ wal-Baraa’” by Khalid El-Gharib: “… to SHOW ENMITY to those who show enmity to Allaah and His Messenger”.
(Note: Muslims are to visibly demonstrate their ENMITY or HATRED towards the kufaar)
– from a lecture given by Sheikh Abdullah al-Faisal (H.A.): “The implication of al-Baraa is that one HATES for the sake of Allah (SWT)…Al-Baraa means to recognize who your enemies are and to HATE them and EXTERMINATE them in their Endeavour to get rid of your Deen, al-Islam…Al-Baraa is to HATE the people who propagate Baatil (falsehood)—the Muslim should HATE them and (at least desire to) KILL them when the time comes.”
J D S says
I love it when Robert and others are able to refute any and everything the Islamic world tries to portray itself as holy and God based……..Do these people think WE are stupid…Even without JW and other sites which tell the truth, there is plenty of evidence out there that shows Islam to be false and more than misleading. All one has to do is do some research…sometimes that’s the problem..taking time to do ones own research
DFD says
Ahmadi, he said: “I have come to break the cross and to kill the swines.”
He was referring to Christians and Jews….
Lydia Church says
These folks are lost in the bliss of ignorance!
They need to start by opening up the koran and actually reading what is says!
Yes, all those things are true.
And that Ahmadi guy will never break the cross, kill us though they may…
mortimer says
Lydia, they know they are misleading us and that is called ‘taqiyya’. They think it is virtuous to trick people into Islam. And they commonly trick cub reporters into assuming they speak for mainstream Islam.
In fact, Ahmadis begin almost every conversation by pretending to represent mainstream Islam. They are 4 million (thought they claim 10 million or much more). They are less than 1% of the entire Muslim population.
Save Europe says
They’re never going to kill us, themselves, but they are dangerous in a plethora of different ways. Robert’s article is excellent. The Ahmadis are the ‘go-to’ guys for the media here in the UK. Examples? After the Bataclan/Paris attacks, in a trio of small towns in my area, every resident received paper notes through their doors. All us locals were invited to a town hall for food and the chance to debate matters, and make things more agreeable between non Muslims and Muslims. In very small print at the bottom of the typed, professional pamphlet, it stated that the ‘invitations’ were from the local Ahmadi Community. I later explained to a neighbour, that within the whole Muslim scheme of ‘things’ that they are irrelevant and number such a minuscule percentage of Muslims around the world. Even more so Sunnis – especially – see them as Infidels as well, and not Musllim. I believe in Pakistan – they tried to pass legislation espousing that they should be categorised as non Musllim. Sunnis loathe them because they don’t believe MoHamHead was the final prophet – a big ‘no no’ as you can imagine. People who have ill-knowledge pick up a paper and turn on the news to see Ahmadis laying wreaths after both London attacks and think – ‘these are all Muslims.’ They’re NOT. I also fail to understand the mindset of Ahmadis – they don’t seem to realise that if Muslims became a majority in the UK, 30 years from now, they’d be in a precarious predicament as well. Ahmadis should be ignored and the MSM should explain to viewers and readers their relevance is zero. They should note how a Pakistani Sunni Muslim drove tens of miles to murder a Glaswegian Ahmadi in his shop because he always wished all his customers a Happy Easter. To conclude – Ahmadis are Leftists who believe a kumbaya love-in will take place and that’s unrealistic.
gravenimage says
The line about “breaking the cross and killing the swine” refers to the Islamic “Jesus”–really, “Isa”–who Muslims, including Ahmadis, believe will return in the last days to slaughter all the Christians.
Carolyne says
When I say swine, I mean Muslims.
DFD says
Hi Carolyne,
“When I say swine, I mean Muslims”
I sympathize with your views, but think about it: When or if you bestow upon Muslims equality with swines, you could be upsetting Porky Pig. He’d have to look for a save space! And what about those of us who love their bacons and hams?
So I hope you will change your views, and express yourself somewhat more appropriately, when it comes to Muslims. May I suggest cockroaches? I myself thought of rats, but rats are supposed to be intelligent – obviously an impossibility where Muslims are concerned. To illustrate that point, nay: To emphasize, just read a few of “Ibrahim itace muhammed’s” posts or comments and you will see my point.
Good ’18 🙂
mortimer says
As Stephen Kirby points out in “Ahmadi Muslims Hijack Islam”, many doctrines of the Ahmadis are the opposite of Sunnite doctrines. We must assume by their ‘VERSION’ of Islam, that Allah and Mohammed are the two worst communicators in history, because whenever the two of them say ‘KILL, SLAUGHTER or BEHEAD’…they ACTUALLY mean ‘give them a hug’ or ‘buy them an ice cream cone or a small gift’.
(sarc/off)
Do the Ahmadis think we cannot read the original source texts of Islam?
gravenimage says
The Ahmadis are not quite as sweetness and light as you might think, Mortimer. They still wan to see the imposition of bloody Shari’ah law.
Save Europe says
I’m not defending them here – but some do and some don’t. Many don’t believe MoHamHead was the final Prophet and thus a lot of his comments become null and void, to them. They’re almost like Mormons in a way – some weird offshoot – and in this case they tried to bastardise, positively, a Death Cult. By that nature, they are, indeed, dangerous. I recall a Gold medal winning member of the GB Olympic team – Louis Smith – being caught on film mocking Islam at a Wedding reception, whist drunk. Upon realising he was on a hit list he went scrambling to apologise to Muslims in a mosque….yes, you guessed it – everything was okay because he went to an Ahmadi mosque. If it had been Sunni he would probably be ‘sans’ head, at this time of writing. But….ohhh how the MSM loved to promote the Louis Smith/Ahmadi ‘love-in.’
gravenimage says
Thanks for the reply, Save Europe.
Lydia Church says
The background banner also reads like one of those false ‘world peace’ we can all ‘be one’ new age deception and garbage. Another false propaganda poster for the false one world religion and false world peace and utopia that leads to hell without Jesus.
gravenimage says
Ahmadi Muslims Hijack Islam
…………………….
Fine piece by Stephen Kirby.
Ahmadi Muslims not only whitewash Islam, but they pretend to Infidels that their splinter sect of Islam–which rejects violent Jihad–is mainstream Islam.
But it is not. Ahmadis are persecuted and murdered in Dar-al-Islam, and are deemed heretics. Most Muslims do not even consider Ahmadis to be Muslim at all.
There is another issue, as well, and one that Ahmadis in the West seldom mention: while the Ahmadiyya do reject Jihad, they seek the imposition of brutal Shari’ah law, just as do their more orthodox coreligionists.
mortimer says
Thanks GI, for that. The Ahmadi splinter represents less than 1% of all Muslims.
gravenimage says
True, Mortimer.
Happy New Year to you!
IQ al Rassooli says
The Ahmadis are the most despicable of all ‘Muslims’ since although they are literally persecuted or murdered by TRUE Muslims, they continue to DECEIVE non Muslims about the most DEPRAVED bipedal creature that ever walked this Earth called Muhammad bin abd Allah
As JW repeatedly exposes their DECEPTIONS, they never stop their incomprehensible mission of White Washing Islam and the very Muslims who HATE them
I have always made the challenge that $200,000 says it is Impossible to find a SINGLE Muslim (Sharia compliant) with TWO brain cells of Logic when dealing with Religion, Politics and History.
IQ al Rassooli
Kafir & Proud!
mortimer says
Well done, IQ. No one can defend Islam morally, historically or logically, therefore, it should be abandon as worthless with confidence.
Singh the Sikh says
The Ahmadhis employ stealth jihad through lies, deceit, and trickery. They imagine they are the masters of taqiyya. They revel in their own cleverness. They take the non-Musllims for fools. But most can see right through their sham. They claim to disavow apostasy but their community isolate and shun anyone who leaves the faith – just like any other cult. The Ahmadis are never to be trusted. It’s good we have the likes if Prof Kirby and Robert Spencer keeping an eye on them and exposing their lies.
gravenimage says
Unfortunately, a lot of hopeful Infidels swallow this Taqiyya.
Ibrahim itace muhammed says
Stephen m kirby could not tell us how many millions of Muslims brutally murdered by crusaders in thé name of mithraist christ as history accurately recorded. Those Jews executed were not extrajudicially murdered during thé time of prophet muhammad. They were tried and found guilty for treachery before an impartial tribunal according to thé terms of treaty of togetherness they voluntarily signed. How can person a person duly convicted of treachery be considered to be murdered. even under current US’ law treason carries death penalty.
Ahmadis are just agents of imperialists as thé founder Ahmad Qadiani taught that It is against his religion for Muslims to use jihad to resist British imperialists in then India ,which gave Hindu pagans an opportunity to form résistance movements that led to indepencedance of India from British colanialisation and They dominate Indian politics uptil today. As such Ahmadis are traitors and that is why they are loved by hegemonic Christian West Who want muslims to remain docile not use jîhad to resist oppression.
gravenimage says
The appalling Ibrahim itace muhammed wrote:
Stephen m kirby could not tell us how many millions of Muslims brutally murdered by crusaders in thé name of mithraist christ as history accurately recorded.
…………………………..
Firstly, the Crusades were a limited *defensive* response to centuries of Muslim conquest.
But even if they had not been, it is notable that Ibrahim itace muhammed has to go back almost a thousand years to find an even vaguely plausible example. He is only happy when Muslims are slaughtering Infidels.
I will not even address his constant ludicrous claims that Jesus is “Mithraist”.
More:
Those Jews executed were not extrajudicially murdered during thé time of prophet muhammad. They were tried and found guilty for treachery before an impartial tribunal according to thé terms of treaty of togetherness they voluntarily signed. How can person a person duly convicted of treachery be considered to be murdered. even under current US’ law treason carries death penalty.
…………………………..
What he means here is that Jews can be “judicially” murdered under Islam, and that not converting to Islam is deemed “treason”. Ibrahim itace muhammed has himself said that he is looking forward to executing the genocide of the Jews, according to Islamic scripture.
Of course, the United States follows no such savage creed.
More:
Ahmadis are just agents of imperialists as thé founder Ahmad Qadiani taught that It is against his religion for Muslims to use jihad to resist British imperialists in then India ,which gave Hindu pagans an opportunity to form résistance movements that led to indepencedance of India from British colanialisation and They dominate Indian politics uptil today. As such Ahmadis are traitors and that is why they are loved by hegemonic Christian West Who want muslims to remain docile not use jîhad to resist oppression.
…………………………..
More proof that orthodox Muslims hate and murder Ahmadis for not being violent *enough*.
Ibrahim itace muhammed’s implication that they had much influence over Muslims in India is quite absurd, though–they have always been a small sect despised by most Muslims.
The reason Hindus have so much influence in India is because they make up the majority there, despite centuries of abuse at the hands of Muslims.
Ibrahim itace muhammed cannot stand any land not being dominated by Muslims, and Muslims not being able to persecute Infidels.
The Ahmadi just get a lot of attention here because so many Infidels really, really want to believe that Islam is peaceful. Ibrahim itace muhammed shows what contempt Muslims have for that idea.
CRUSADER says
Bringing up the Crusades, are we now ?
Carolyne says
Well, as the traitor Muslim Hussein Obama said, “Before you get on your high horse…..” Remember the crusades.
Anyone who has ever read a book on the subject knows that the Christians were taking back land from idiot Muslims whose only claim to Jerusalem is that once Big Mo dreamed about visiting Jerusalem and riding to heaven on a flying donkey. Aisha said he never left his bed.
mortimer says
Ibrahim, there can be no counting the Muslims killed “IN THE NAME OF CHRISTIANITY”, but the number would be far under one million, since the Crusades were a period of 200 years. When Muslims attacked European kingdoms and empires, those kingdoms fought in the name of their king, not in the name of the Christian church.
Ibn Khaldun says: “In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the [Muslim] mission and [the obligation to] convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force… The OTHER RELIGIOUS GROUPS DID NOT HAVE a universal (military) mission, and the HOLY WAR WAS NOT a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense… Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.”
Save Europe says
1) thanks for clarifying your position on Ahmadis. Good work! 2) You keep prattling on about Crusaders, and I asked you last week on another thread – how did Bosnians and Albanians come to be Muslim in some areas? (You never replied because then you’d have to admit what happened in Europe before the counter defensive Crusades). 3) fornicate off now, please.
MFritz says
Please don’t feed the troll! Soros pays these whores and criminals to lie and provoke.
Save Europe says
Tbh I just enjoy making him look stupid.
Ibrahim itace muhammed says
mortier, crusade wars were organised directly by thé churchmen, hence fighters for Christ. That is It why It was termed as “crusade”ie,fighting for Christ. It means you dont want study thé genesis of crusade, because you dont want those liés that christianity is not à violent religion to be exposed. During Gulf war George w Bush termed his war against Iraq as crusade where some unexploded cluster bombs were found bearing mithraist evîl biblical verses.
Continue with your déceptions. we Will never buy them no matter how you try to watwash your pagan evîl religion inspired by thé Satan (holy spirit) thé father of all evils
gravenimage says
I see Ibrahim itace muhammed is still babbling about the Crusades. He *does* understand they ended almost a thousand years ago?
More:
During Gulf war George w Bush termed his war against Iraq as crusade where some unexploded cluster bombs were found bearing mithraist evîl biblical verses.
…………………………
This Mohammedan has made this ludicrous claim before, yet has never backed it up. Since there is no way he can do so, this should not surprise.
CRUSADER says
Itace could be missing a few letters from his name:
_ _ it _ace
????????
gravenimage says
🙂
CRUSADER says
That’s right! Ring the Bells !!!!
Save Europe says
Iraq and Afghanistan were as a result of the unprovoked, pure evil 9/11 attacks. Frankly, the U.S. And the UK should have invaded the TRUE Axis of Evil – Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Pakistan. The countries who endorse and bankroll Sunni terrorism.
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
The whitewashing of Mohammad makes the Ahmadis the most dangerous sect of Mohammadism.
Thomas Brewster says
Amen. This reminds me of the end of I Claudius, where the emperor says:
“By dulling the blade of tyranny, I reconciled Rome to the monarchy.”
CRUSADER says
This could be something interesting….it refers to Jihad Watch, etc.
—————————————–(note: from 2011)
A member of Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement is writing an online book that answers bashing of Holy Quran, Holy Prophet Muhammad SAWS, and Islam in general by people at ‘Jihad Watch’. Please take a look and see if you could contribute your thoughts and suggestions:
Project Rebuttal – “Islam: What The West Needs To Know”:
http://ahmadiyya.org/WordPress/project-rebuttal/
gravenimage says
Here are some of the Qur’anic verses that are quoted at that site:
The successful outcome of this or similar project is assured by the following verses of Quran:
9:88. But the Messenger and those who believe with him strive hard with their property and their persons.
………………………………
“Property and persons” means violent Jihad, and funding violent Jihad.
More:
48:2. The result of this [-peace treaty of Hudaibiyah]is that Allâh will protect you [Muhammad] from (the ill consequences of) the fault attributed to you in the past and those to follow, and that He will make His favour perfect upon you and will lead you to the goal of the exact right path;
………………………………
Of course, it was the Muslims who violated the Treaty of Hudaibiyah.
This just sounds like more whitewashing of Islam.
Nice to see that Jihad Watch is getting under their skin, though.
MFritz says
The truth is their worst enemy.
gravenimage says
True, MFritz.
No Fear says
Canonical source Islamic texts such as the Hadith of Sahih Muslim and Sahih abu Dawud say that Mohammed encouraged rape of non muslims:
“The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse: (Quran Sura 4:24) “And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.” ”
– (from Hadith Abu Dawud 2150, also Hadith Sahih Muslim 3433)
PATRICIA FRANCES KOENIG says
The Ahmadis are like real Muslims in that they tell blatant lies to promote Islam.
No Fear says
The Ahmadis would be better off saying that the Mohammed story is a gnostic myth….e.g Mohammed rids the cosmos (i.e. your own self) of all vestiges of polytheism and then the cosmos (i.e. you) attains knowledge of the true divinity. Unfortunately , when taken at face value as a historical story, Mohammed’s task is monstrous. By trying to justify Mohammed as a historical “mr nice guy” the Ahmadis are losing all credibility.
Paul Ashley says
Gee, what a swell guy this Ahmadi Muhammed is. His murderous behavior is totally justifiable! And, gee, don’t we all want a justifiably murderous prophet to follow as an example?
UNCLE VLADDI says
From here: http://sheikyermami.com/questions-remain-unanswered/
“The Ahmadiyya, falsely portrayed as ‘moderates’ due to corny slogans like “hatred for none, love for all”, are a fiercely proselytising sect often prosecuted in Islamic countries for heresy. In the West, they are falsely perceived to be non-violent, although their head honcho personally threatened Geert Wilders and all those who oppose Islam with ‘destruction’.”
Kepha says
What do I know about the Ahmadis? They see some 19th century Panjabi as the Mahdi; Arnold Toynbee utterly gushed over them, and saw them as the religion of the future (what is it with learned Brits and Islam?); they have a YUUUGE mosque and compound on one of the routes I sometimes take home from work, and it looks as if it might be a rival to David Koresh’s Waco compound one of these days; and in a field across the street, there are fat sheep grazing in the run-up to Id.
has anyone thought of hosting a dialogue between the Ahmadis and the Sudanese Ansaris (the followers of the Dungulahwi Mahdi, whose Khalifa got cut down by British maxim guns at Umm-durman?
JawsV says
Dear Ahmadis: We are Americans. We can read. We’re perfectly capable of reading the Koran, a war manual, and seeing what Islam’s all about. We don’t need “true Muslims” to explain simple Islam to us.
P.S. The only things hijacked were planes on 9/11.